The way I look at it it looks like the BIG GUYS don't have enough customers no more. When there were enough customers there were no problems caused by high prices. Almost everybody had a job and made good money.

So everybody was happy. Customers made the salespersons happy. salespersons made the businesses happy. The businesses made the stockholders happy.

But then came a BIGGER BUSINESS that wanted more. How could they do that? By having prices lower than the competition. But to achieve that they also had to cut salaries, for a while like they told their employees, but the problem is that the salaries never got back to where they were before. So because of that those employees could'nt afford to buy all the nice things they were able to buy once upon a time. So that also affected sales of other companies which had to make job cuts because they could'nt afford to pay all the employees they had. You could repeat that loop but not endlessly. We're not dealing with computer iterations here but with human lives.

How low can we go? That is the question.

Henry Ford put a stop to the same nonsense many years ago. When he realized that his workers could'nt afford the vehicles they were making he raised his employees salaries.

I think that another move like that will have to happen eventually. Capitalism has to go upwards to work effectively.

By the way don't think that there's only one BIG BUSINESS. There are many of those that could be held responsible for screwing capitalism. Capitalism works for the owners of those big companies but they screwed everybody else.

>I'll be the first to say that 'he who owns the gold makes the rules' when it comes to investing that gold. They can pick and choose based on whatever and may write whatever conditions they wish, and if the borrower/investment wants it bad they'll agree, else they'll decline.
>
>That said, what's a poor ol' company to do when it cannot export its jobs to China??? You know, companies that deliver services that require their presence to fulfill that service. Air Canada is one such example.
>
>Seems that Air Canada has staff counts and wage loads comparable to other airlines in its 'class'.
>But Air Canada has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for over a year now and, unlike it's U.S. cousins, hasn't had a 9/11 bailout package available to them.
>
>They had an investment deal fall through last month when the investor demanded abrogation of pension responsibilities and employees roundly rejected the idea.
>Now they're into overtime negotiations (deadline was midnight Saturday night) and only one union of 8 is holding out for the demanded $200,000,000. annually cut in payroll (two had been holding out until sometime Monday (today)).
>The (now) lone holdout has stated publicly that his union has been giving and giving and giving since 1990 and it's time for someone else to pay the piper.
>
>I have to say that I agree with that position and sure hope that more unions will adopt it rather than caving to threats.
>
>Of course, we've all been encouraged into borrowing so deeply (I heard recently that U.S. savings were around 9% in the early 70's, just under 5% in the early 90's and now sit a less than 1% as at 2003) so we're all dreadfully fearful for our own jobs, and I'm sure the Air Canada employees involved are in no different of a position.
>This trend simply HAS GOT TO BE STOPPED!!! If it isn't, we'll ALL - THE WHOLE WORLD - be earning wages equivalent to Chinese factory wages.
>
>That Jet Blue or West Jet has cut costs drastically by staving off unions and by having pilots/attendants clean up cabin garbage and vacuum the carpeting and anyone doing whatever job is at hand offers an admirable model for profits by paring costs to the bone. But what the hell does it offer for society????
>What it offers is simple - more demands from virtually every non (job) exportable employer, to cut costs by any means available. This starts by more hours for existing staff... then demanding municipal/state/federal tax concessions... then not replacing departed staff... then paring benefits for remaining staff... then firing some staff... then converting staff to part-time (lose remaining benefits)... then...they'll think of something.
>
>How does this benefit society???
>
>It does succeed in creating more customers for Wal-Mart but it sends municipal services and state services down the tubes by growing welfare rolls and increasing homelessness. Oh, food banks start booming too!
>
>I don't know how this gets stopped, but I am quite sure that some common sense is badly needed to avert the suicide of capitalism.